Robertson v. MERSCORP, Inc., et al

Filing 13

OPINION AND ORDER directing that the plaintiff's 12 motion to remand is set for submission, without oral argument, on January 27, 2012, with the defendants to file any opposition brief by January 20, 2012, and the plaintiff to reply by January 27, 2012, as further set out. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 1/9/12. (scn, )

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION

NANCY O. ROBERTSON, in her
official capacity as
Probate Judge of Barbour
County, Alabama, on behalf
of herself and all others
similarly situated,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
MERSCORP, INC., a Delaware )
corporation, and MORTGAGE )
ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION
)
SYSTEMS, INC., a Delaware )
corporation,
)
)
Defendants.
)

CIVIL ACTION NO.
2:11cv1111-MHT
(WO)

OPINION AND ORDER
In her motion to remand, plaintiff Nancy O. Robertson
contends that defendants MERSCORP, Inc., and Mortgage
Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., have failed to
satisfy the jurisdictional amount for removal based on
diversity-of-citizenship, 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

The court is

also concerned whether the plaintiff (as a probate judge
in her official capacity) is a “citizen” of the State of

Alabama for § 1332 purposes.

If the plaintiff is an arm

of the State, cf. Carr v. City of Florence, 916 F.2d 1521
(11th

Cir.

1990)

(holding

that

sheriffs

county

are

actually state officials), then the plaintiff may very
well not be a citizen for § 1332 purposes.

See Moor v.

Alameda County, 411 U.S. 693 (1973) (a State and its
officials are not “citizens” for diversity purposes).
However, if the plaintiff is an arm of a political
subdivision of the State, then she may very well be a
citizen for § 1332 purposes.

See University of South

Alabama v. American Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 405, 412 (11th
Cir. 1999) (stating that a political subdivision of a
State

and

its

officials

are

citizens

for

diversity

purposes).
***
Accordingly,

it

is

ORDERED

that

the

plaintiff’s

motion to remand (Doc. No. 12) is set for submission,
without oral argument, on January 27, 2012, with the
defendants to file any opposition brief by January 20,

2

2012, and the plaintiff to reply by January 27, 2012.

In

their briefs, the plaintiff and the defendants should
address not only the issue raised in the remand motion
but also the court’s concern as well.
DONE, this the 9th day of January, 2012.
/s/ Myron H. Thompson
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE